Problem is that you're making an argument about how this will be bad because of some nebulous idea of what may or may not happen in the future due to this.
The thing is if this was the first time a change resulted in a particular location having its value and traffic reduced then you'd be 100% correct. The fact that there have been other changes before it that show very similar intent shows a trend. We're not looking to the future to find a nebulous event that may or may not occur, we're in the nebula.
Now... does engaging in an activity, which has rules and boundaries, constitute an act of masochism? Not necessarily. Finding a path around obstacles to reach an objective provides a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. The desire is not for punishment. The desire is for reward.
This point encapsulates so much of my thought. I wish I had written it.
l...It's not the laziness of the player that bothers me. It's the laziness of the developers.
I think this change is lazy of the developers. Here's why.
Since starting this thread (one of my thought-out posts as opposed to the knee jerk posts that many people hate me for) I've read a lot of different viewpoints, almost all of them constructive. (Thank you all for this.) I have read all posts and have slightly modified my train of thought, i.e. ship swapping in friendly territory would be a nice compromise. Even though, there is still something that is not sitting well with me.
This game is predominantly a space game. It's not Horizon Trek Online, or Land Trek Online or Soil Trek Online, it's STAR Trek Online. Star, as in astral body, out in space. To me (and this is opinion only) but a game of the stars should involve travel through them.
This upcoming change will be the latest in a string of changes that have rendered sector space more and more useless. The devs are responsible for this, after all regardless of who wants what changes they are the ones that implement it.
Rather than reducing the importance and value of space travel, the devs should be looking to grow it. To give it value. To make it fun. This sort of change would be far more valuable than creating new areas like the Dyson Sphere. Why? Because if you make space fun and valuable then EVERY future update to the game that involves space travel will benefit.
How to make it fun and valuable? Well, I'm not a game designer so all of my thoughts may not be surefire winners but...
--> Bring back random encounters, ones that you can run from. Make them optional by having an activation/deactivation setting in the options.
--> Create new sets to provide as random loot. Not cruddy blue MK XI stuff but introduce new sets that do different things. Maybe not as powerful as reputation MK XII gear but viable. This gives stuff for characters who have not yet maxed out their rep to use.
--> Utilise the lower deck of ESD (and a like area of Kronos) to provide missions that characters can embark on. Make them need to go out in to space and provide random missions. Missions with value. These missions will provide non-replicatable, non-tradable items that can be used in crafting.
--> Introduce new devices, devices that can be crafted. (more devices besides batteries are needed.) Make the ingredients obtained by these missions described above. For cool items, make the recipes rare to find and usable only once with a chance for failure.
--> Ensure that all of this stuff is viable but not more powerful that MK XII reputation gear. That stuff should be more powerful as it not only takes a long time to max out reputation but the items also have high costs to create.
--> Implement a system where the use of transwarp to the mission location is disabled. Make the missions in the less used systems to encourage growth and traffic through those areas less loved.
--> Most importantly, MAKE THIS ALL OPTIONAL. If a player wants to do it, then they can. If they don't, then their gameplay isn't affected. They're not going to miss out on getting the best gear in the game if they choose not to participate.
Laziness is taking the relevance of locations away. Innovation and creativity is injecting life in to areas that are becoming less used. Now, whether you want a system like this or not I think that this would be good for the game as it adds dimension without forcing anyone to do it.
Now... does engaging in an activity, which has rules and boundaries, constitute an act of masochism?
Difficult not to reach that conclusion when it is being implied that subjecting oneself to that inconvenience somehow contributes to your having "earned" the "reward" of arriving at your destination, that gravitating towards an easier solution means you are somehow a less devoted, less worthy player. See: The use of the terms "lazy" and "dumbed down".
That is pure, unmitigated TRIBBLE. Your willingness to jump through tedious hoops does not prove you more "worthy" somehow.
Finding a path around obstacles to reach an objective provides a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.
Maybe for you it does. Not everyone shares your sentiment or recognizes it as valid.
The desire is not for punishment. The desire is for reward.
If the "reward" is learning to navigate sector space, I have LONG since earned it, and I don't owe anyone any further demonstration of that fact.
Just a quick question, do we have SB on all the sectors? If yes we could use them for ships transfers. But again this is a game if you want the real deal you are 400 years too early.
To me (and this is opinion only) but a game of the stars should involve travel through them.
For the sake of itself? Tedious slog through maps and loading screens just to satisfy some arbitrary condition to qualify as a "space" game?
No. Just no. Space combat satisfies that requirement just fine.
Implement a system where the use of transwarp to the mission location is disabled. Make the missions in the less used systems to encourage growth and traffic through those areas less loved.
The theme here is that space traffic is a good thing, just because. So far I've seen nothing to support the contention, no reason why it is a good thing.
And no, saying "Duh, it's a space game, so it should require space travel" is not adequate. Some of these locations should take us weeks/months/years of travel, and if you're not willing to accept that level of realism, you're just as guilty of imposing arbitrary limits for the sake of convenience as anyone else.
Laziness is taking the relevance of locations away.
Again with that word. Explain to me how lengthy travel in sector space is somehow the opposite of lazy. Does it make you more of a hard worker, more dedicated to the game? No. It makes you more patient with the utterly pointless tedium. The word you're looking for isn't "lazy." It's "impatient," and there's nothing in sector space to merit showing it any patience. Nothing but the empty symbolism of pretending to travel somewhere.
So when they add the autopilot between sector blocks like they said they wanted to we can expect you'll all whine and complain about it as being lazy as well?
Nitpicking is a time-honored tradition of science fiction. Asking your readers not to worry about the "little things" is like asking a dog not to sniff at people's crotches. If there's something that appears to violate natural laws, then you can expect someone's going to point it out. That's just the way things are.
Again with that word. Explain to me how lengthy travel in sector space is somehow the opposite of lazy. Does it make you more of a hard worker, more dedicated to the game? No. It makes you more patient with the utterly pointless tedium. The word you're looking for isn't "lazy." It's "impatient," and there's nothing in sector space to merit showing it any patience. Nothing but the empty symbolism of pretending to travel somewhere.
Because to complete the missions you would need to travel through space and run the risk of random encounters. That would be part of the missions obtained through the lower levels of ESD and the equivalent section of Kronos.
Now, my suggestion states that this system would be optional. This means you wouldn't have to to it. You could still transwarp to all the locations you can now, just not the new missions I'm suggesting. That being said, you could turn that part of the game off. Your current gameplay would not be affected, yet here you are attacking. Hmmm....
Again with that word. Explain to me how lengthy travel in sector space is somehow the opposite of lazy. Does it make you more of a hard worker, more dedicated to the game? No. It makes you more patient with the utterly pointless tedium. The word you're looking for isn't "lazy." It's "impatient," and there's nothing in sector space to merit showing it any patience. Nothing but the empty symbolism of pretending to travel somewhere.
Hmmm.....
Well, its not that travelling sector space is either lazy or not.
However, given that there are rewards given for effort that makes sector space travel faster, one could argue that the faster you travel sector space the less lazy you are. Because you're running a higher mark warp core and, perhaps, have ground out faster rep engines.
But, because faster means less lazy in this paradigm, it doesn't mean infinitely fast is infinitely not lazy.
It means that the lazy/not lazy thing has been bypassed utterly.
Those faster engines you ground out? They mean nothing anymore.
It is not a piece of awesome game design to put a progression ingame that is nullified by a new mechanism.
So when they add the autopilot between sector blocks like they said they wanted to we can expect you'll all whine and complain about it as being lazy as well?
If the autopilot turns you into Quetzalcoatl for no reason while activated. Sure. But then again, that would almost be worth it.
The slippery slope fallacy is not about potential. It is about inevitability. That is the fallacy.
What is equally fallacious is the denial of potential consequences inherent in any action.
And as stated earlier, there is no need to rely on prophecies, when history is already evinced.
Sector space not having gameplay value is the historical evidence. Once upon a time, you could not travel sector space without the possibility of being drawn into a Deep Space Encounter, whether you wanted to or not. Now you can only enter a DSE by choice and there is only one DSE map for an entire sector. One of the greatest IP resources and it has become a joke, because there's no direct revenue the developers could find there.
Only if it is, in fact, baseless. Otherwise its eerie prescience.
I absolutely see your point. I imagine for many players sector space is an inconvenience.
It's not exactly that for me though.
When I'm flying through sector space there are, in fact, a number of things I do.
I often look at other peoples ships as I pass by, enjoying their creativity in naming or building their ships.
I thoroughly enjoy the landscape, such as it is. Nebulae and other stellar objects are interesting to me. I get a kick out of watching the light effects on the hull of my ship as i pass by.
I'll often use the time to deal with administrative tasks such as inventory management and doff missions, or reply to ingame mail, or sort out some fleet projects.
And finally, if sector space is to become irrelevant......then whats the point of giving some engines increased sector space travel speed? Whats the point of capping warp speed via the warp cores?
Because these things do have a point in game terms, let alone the IP.
There has to be a progression. And that progression needs to be measured against something concrete, and there needs to be consequences for choices.
Sector space is an important part of the game, if only because progression in the game gives you a progressive ability to travel it.
You stated in the quote earlier that 'sector space has no value'.
I'd amend that to 'little value, generally'.
Which means there is a choice.
We can make it more valuable or less.
The upcoming change can either give sector space more meaning or less.
More meaning if the proposed amendment is actioned, because you're making people pay attention to which sector they're in if they want to change ships.
Less meaning if the mechanism works everywhere.
I'd much prefer the former.
I said there is no game play value. That's quite a difference from no value at all.
You might be able to derive some kind of value from sector space, but as game play is concerned, it's quite barren. In the end, sector space is a poorly thought out and poorly executed mechanic that is desperately in need of an overhaul.
Go here and show your support for a better Foundry!
Because to complete the missions you would need to travel through space and run the risk of random encounters. That would be part of the missions obtained through the lower levels of ESD and the equivalent section of Kronos.
Now, my suggestion states that this system would be optional. This means you wouldn't have to to it. You could still transwarp to all the locations you can now, just not the new missions I'm suggesting. That being said, you could turn that part of the game off.
So long as you understand that there's nothing whatsoever "wrong" with the fact that you'd get some participation initially, and then most people are going to switch off that setting and resume getting where they need to go as quickly as possible.
Your current gameplay would not be affected, yet here you are attacking. Hmmm....
:rolleyes:
You're a little oversensitive if you took anything I said as an "attack".
Those faster engines you ground out? They mean nothing anymore.
It is not a piece of awesome game design to put a progression ingame that is nullified by a new mechanism.
Name one "piece of awesome" that grants you speed in sector space and nothing else.
I submit that it is a peripheral benefit of minor, secondary importance to the main benefit of those skill points and pieces of equipment. Quantum slipstream drive I will grant you, but as for the rest...they will still have value for me even if I never show up in sector space again.
So when they add the autopilot between sector blocks like they said they wanted to we can expect you'll all whine and complain about it as being lazy as well?
Not at all. I've been complaining about that aspect of sector space travel since launch.
Their failure to recognize does not alter the reality.
Failure to recognize that you feel a sense of accomplishment for the lofty achievement of navigating sector space? Do you understand that your precious little feelings are not universal, and do not dictate reality?
This is missing the point by so much that I'm tempted to simply not bother with further responses to your posts.
Disagreeing with you is not "missing the point." You said the desire is for the reward. What reward? Your sense of accomplishment. As there is no sense of accomplishment in that for me, there is no reward. If there is a point beyond that, you have failed to articulate it. It's more likely that you just want people to accept that there is some value in it without you having to define it in non-subjective, unemotional terms.
I don't care where I change my ship. It's already strangely convenient that you can access all your ships instantly from any space dock.
What I want is for the ships to keep their configuration when I switch between them.
The ship power tray, power levels, BOff stations, Active Space DOffs, everything except the weapons and consoles. Currently power levels and BOff stations are kept (until the next major release where they have to fix it again...), the rest is on a per character basis, not a per ship basis.
Star Trek Battles Channel - Play Star Trek like they did in the series!Avatar: pinterest-com/pin/14003448816884219Are you sure it isn't time for a "colorful metaphor"? --Spock in 'The Voyage Home' SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
I like to see people. With some ships having bank and exchange and now if they allow people to change ships in game it will thin space dock use.
That is precisely the heart of the matter. These are individual needs ignoring the environment at large. And without the environment, what use is this game as a MMO?
That is precisely the heart of the matter. These are individual needs ignoring the environment at large. And without the environment, what use is this game as a MMO?
---
People need to face the fact that the social/multiplayer aspect is something of an afterthought in this game. All of the storyline/episode stuff can be done solo. All of the queued missions can be done without speaking to a single other person. Even with close friends online, we team up and do things. That's more than enough justification for subscribing to an online multiplayer game. I don't need it to be an elaborate conference call for me to catch up with acquaintances. That angle adds zero value for me, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
I'm wondering if changing ships in sector space is a precursor to what they said a long time ago they wanted to do. They mentioned way back at one point that they wanted to increase the level cap to 60, give us full admiral and general rank, and allow us to command a fleet of our own starships.
It's possible the season 8.5 changes could set the foundation for that. But my guess is that it will take a new full season or expansion before we see anything like that.
I won't hold my breath, but I like what I'm hearing about the changes so far.
How to make it fun and valuable? Well, I'm not a game designer so all of my thoughts may not be surefire winners but...
--> (1) Bring back random encounters, ones that you can run from. Make them optional by having an activation/deactivation setting in the options.
--> (2) Create new sets to provide as random loot. Not cruddy blue MK XI stuff but introduce new sets that do different things. Maybe not as powerful as reputation MK XII gear but viable. This gives stuff for characters who have not yet maxed out their rep to use.
--> (3) Utilise the lower deck of ESD (and a like area of Kronos) to provide missions that characters can embark on. Make them need to go out in to space and provide random missions. Missions with value. These missions will provide non-replicatable, non-tradable items that can be used in crafting.
--> (4) Introduce new devices, devices that can be crafted. (more devices besides batteries are needed.) Make the ingredients obtained by these missions described above. For cool items, make the recipes rare to find and usable only once with a chance for failure.
--> (5) Ensure that all of this stuff is viable but not more powerful that MK XII reputation gear. That stuff should be more powerful as it not only takes a long time to max out reputation but the items also have high costs to create.
--> (6) Implement a system where the use of transwarp to the mission location is disabled. Make the missions in the less used systems to encourage growth and traffic through those areas less loved.
--> (7) Most importantly, MAKE THIS ALL OPTIONAL. If a player wants to do it, then they can. If they don't, then their gameplay isn't affected. They're not going to miss out on getting the best gear in the game if they choose not to participate.
Now, see, this I can work with (just the quoted bit, not the continued taking of pot shots at those who would not like to be subjected to forced conformity to your preferred style of play, which I omitted from what I quoted). This I can respond to without a "Reflect Damage" approach.
I've added numbers (in a nice Romulanish green) to the quoted bit, to facilitate my responding.
(1) I like this.
(2) I like this.
(3) I like this, with one alteration: make the items account-bound, rather than character-bound. At Tier 2 of Dyson Rep, I kept getting the same console over and over again (with varying modifiers and sometimes purple, sometimes blue). I've got a fairly large collection of ships on my main, but honestly, it would have been nice if I could have passed some of these off to my alts, rather than have to sell or store them, since even with all the ships I have on my main, I can only make use of a limited number of these without having to trash other useful and desirable consoles on ships with limited number of slots for that type of console. I realize that's reputation stuff, and not intended to be movable between different characters on the same account, but it left me wondering if the Devs had really thought it through before implementing this aspect of the Dyson rep.
(4) I generally like this. Not too sure on the single-use blueprint or the chance of failure. Challenge is good, up to a point, and that point is when it begins to become frustrating.
(5) I'm not a fan of the grind (in this or any other game). The Dyson rep recently introduced is actually fairly quick and easy to get to tier 5 (if you can handle the atmospheric debuff in the space missions and/or are puissant in ground missions (I find the ground stuff generally quite frustrating, because the sensitivity of the mouse seems excessive, but if I turn it down in ground, it is also turned down in space, and that wouldn't be desirable). I normally prefer space missions to ground missions, but in the Sphere, it's the other way around, because of the atmospheric debuff and all the particle effects making the space missions mimic the effects of server latency. But anyway, I was under the impression that the system in use for Dyson rep would be a new system that would eventually be added to the previously-extant reputations, to make all of them less grindy than they currently are. Should it take effort? Of course. Should it take forever? Certainly not. Rather than add more grind, what's needed is more content, in the form of storyline and missions. It took me very little time to get from level 0 to level 50, such that I was still doing storyline missions well after hitting the level cap. I do like the idea of having things still to do at the level cap, but when the rewards for doing those missions are green Mk X gear, it seems somewhat silly. In cases like that, the only thing that encouraged me to keep doing the missions was the fact that I like the lore in any game (if it's not done in a horrible manner), and that I adore Star Trek and wanted to know the story of the storyline.
(6) Not sure on this. I would want to see more of what it would be like before I would like to give an opinion.
(7) Very much this. But also, not just a single activate/deactivate for the entirety of 1-6, but each specific (not the details, but the actually different things, -- for example, 1 and 3 and 6 are all different from one another, and rather than one choice to say "aye" or "nay" to the whole thing, we should be able to say "aye" or "nay" to each of these individually, 1 and 3, and 6).
from your link: "slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen."
Inevitable = something that will eventually happen.
Well, if you're saying that it might happen, that is illogical as well. They might close the servers down forever tomorrow if they add an offline option. Both are non-sequitur and presumptive speculation.
If you are saying that it will eventually happen if they implement swapping in space, then you are making a slippery slope argument.
Either way, it's still false. It's seems you're trying to do some hand waving to make it look like you're not making a slippery slope, but you're also making it appear that it is a real problem that must be prevented. If your claim is it's not certain, you're just crying "the sky is falling." If your claim is that it is certain, then you need to demonstrate that it will happen, as proof is something that demonstrates something to be true. Otherwise, it's just your opinion. If you think that's what will happen, that's fine. That doesn't mean we all have to agree that your opinion is factual, when it is merely speculation.
Go here and show your support for a better Foundry!
I said there is no game play value. That's quite a difference from no value at all.
You might be able to derive some kind of value from sector space, but as game play is concerned, it's quite barren. In the end, sector space is a poorly thought out and poorly executed mechanic that is desperately in need of an overhaul.
I think we may be using two different definitions of gameplay.
For myself, its what I get out of playing the game. The value may actually be an emergent phenomenon, in the sense it comes about not because of something a developer set up, but because of the interaction of myself and the game.
Then there's the definition you appear to be using, which is more to do with the game mechanics and whether they work or not.
Neither of us are wrong, i think we're just using a slightly different tool to look at things.
However, I can wholly agree that sector space needs an overhaul.
I can even see how the proposed new ship swap mechanism could be part of that, provided the proposed amendment is made.
If people are looking at which sector they're in, in terms of distance from resupply, then we're already starting to make sector space (or at least which part of sector space you're in) important.
However, the proposed ship swap mechanism, if allowed everywhere, would be its death knell.
Name one "piece of awesome" that grants you speed in sector space and nothing else.
I submit that it is a peripheral benefit of minor, secondary importance to the main benefit of those skill points and pieces of equipment. Quantum slipstream drive I will grant you, but as for the rest...they will still have value for me even if I never show up in sector space again.
Well, you did answer your own question for me.
Quantum slipstream.
A number of other pieces of kit either increase your maximum warp, or reduce the QS CD, or increase how long it lasts as part of their specs.
The proposed change is, in effect, a nerf on all those pieces of equipment.
Perhaps not making them worthless, but certainly making one or two of their abilities useless. Which reduces their overall value.
Nothing in this game, happens in a vacuum. Except the space stuff, thats a vacuum.
But changes in one place effect mechanisms in others.
People need to face the fact that the social/multiplayer aspect is something of an afterthought in this game. All of the storyline/episode stuff can be done solo. All of the queued missions can be done without speaking to a single other person. Even with close friends online, we team up and do things. That's more than enough justification for subscribing to an online multiplayer game. I don't need it to be an elaborate conference call for me to catch up with acquaintances. That angle adds zero value for me, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
With environment, I mean the general flow of things, what you see other people do. What kind of imagery other people conjure up by their presence. How activities form a pattern. Indirectly of course.
In a single player game, this would be emulated by NPCs, here you need "traffic control". And this is where the hubs enter the picture. Apart from functionality, they also need to blend into the background and streamline various activities. Maintaining the general scheme of things.
Now, I will admit to avoid the ESD, it just becomes too much. But some people like it. Apparently. In a MMO it all needs to come together in a coherent pattern, even when you don't like it. And that is why swapping ships, like you would underpants, is such a bad move. It doesn't properly channel the activities, in a manner that conforms to such "traffic control".
In single player games, this would equal some pretty obvious and bad spawning I guess. Much like in an MMO then. Full circle.
Well, if you're saying that it might happen, that is illogical as well. They might close the servers down forever tomorrow if they add an offline option. Both are non-sequitur and presumptive speculation.
If you are saying that it will eventually happen if they implement swapping in space, then you are making a slippery slope argument.
Either way, it's still false.
Okay, but as best I can remember, I didn't make any predictions in this thread. I just corrected people's usage of the term "slippery slope", specifically the difference between inevitable and potential.
With that said, whether or not a concern over potential consequences is illogical is determined by their probability.
Which is still an unnecessary speculation, as we have the an existing trend evinced in the observed history of the game's development.
The game was screwed at launch. There was great potential that for whatever reason, was not realized. Now with momentum and precedents established, there's not much hope it can be salvaged. Still, I do what I can.
I said there is no game play value. That's quite a difference from no value at all.
You might be able to derive some kind of value from sector space, but as game play is concerned, it's quite barren. In the end, sector space is a poorly thought out and poorly executed mechanic that is desperately in need of an overhaul.
I like that link. It says You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
In the case of certain zones being made more and more redundant I think a new slippery-slope type is required.
Midway down the slippery-slope - "When a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i have occurred it is reasonable to assume that j will be next. We should really try to stop at j"
However, I can wholly agree that sector space needs an overhaul.
I can even see how the proposed new ship swap mechanism could be part of that, provided the proposed amendment is made.
If people are looking at which sector they're in, in terms of distance from resupply, then we're already starting to make sector space (or at least which part of sector space you're in) important.
However, the proposed ship swap mechanism, if allowed everywhere, would be its death knell.
There's still a pulse, if faint and thready.
False dilemma and slippery slope in one post.
False dilemma in that you seem to be perceiving only two possibilities, and are certainly presenting only two possibilities. In reality, the "amendment" which you favor is only one of several things that could be done. The lengthy post by darramouss1 to which I replied just a few posts ago offers other proposed modifications. The point is that almost any question has at least three answers. This sort of thinking in "Black Or White And No Other Options" is one of the several reasons why I contend that we need three full factions in game, to discourage such limited and limiting approaches to everything. Dualism stinks, because it seeks to limit everything to two and only two options -- it seeks to limit the unlimited (thought, imagination, creativity).
Slippery slope in that you have stated, in no uncertain terms, but a definite conditional statement, that If X then Y, without showing any reason to believe the truth of that proposition. Your slippery slope appears to be an unwarranted assumption, a bit of hyperbole, an attempt at fear-mongering, or a belief in the infallibility of your divinatory powers.
I'm wondering if changing ships in sector space is a precursor to what they said a long time ago they wanted to do. They mentioned way back at one point that they wanted to increase the level cap to 60, give us full admiral and general rank, and allow us to command a fleet of our own starships.
It's possible the season 8.5 changes could set the foundation for that. But my guess is that it will take a new full season or expansion before we see anything like that.
I won't hold my breath, but I like what I'm hearing about the changes so far.
I hope they do this, what's the point of being an Admiral when you can't command a fleet. Honestly this is the only space game I play where I don't have a fleet following me around in combat. It makes me feel more like a Lieutenant than an Admiral.
One day Cryptic will be free from their Perfect World overlord. Until that day comes, they will continue to pamper the whales of this game, and ignore everyone that isn't a whale.
After catching back up on whats been posted the real heart of the matter raises it's head, those opposed seem to think the social hubs will be abandoned. Don't worry the trolls will still be there and those who may be like me will still avoid it like the plague. I'd also like to know just how many people actually change ships that often. My main char never changes ships unless I get nuts and grab a new shiny CStore ship. I'll be slammed for this but I don't go to the hub vendors either I just dump the junk in the replicator and be done with it, or call the freighter to use the bank or exchange. I'm the very type of person that those against this seem to hate the most. I also have to point out that the vaunted random attacks that use to happen seem to be colored by rose tinted glasses, I and a great many others would just automatically warp out of the encounter each time it happened.
I would have to say from a purely convenience factor it would be great to be able to switch
ships on the fly - however with limitations you can already do that on the shuttle bridge now... So it changes from a choice of two ships to a choice between all of your ships.
From a believability and immersion factor, what I find more ridiculous is a three-pip Admiral in the captain's chair of a single starship. No, this game is not based on real military structure, but consider this scenario:
A United States Navy Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is commanded by a Rear Admiral who generally resides on the carrier itself. He/she is in overall command of the entire Strike Group. He/she does not directly command the carrier itself - that is the responsibility of a Captain who is assigned command of the carrier.
Other elements of this CSG include:
* The Carrier Air Wing - the squadrons of aircraft stationed on the carrier. Overseen by the Commander Air Group (CAG) - Captain in rank;
* Guided missile cruisers - overseen by Captains;
* Destroyers - overseen by Captains;
* Submarine/s - overseen by Captains;
* Supply and logistics vessels - overseen by Captains.
The point of this description is as background for my take on the situation - my question is not why or how a ship should/should not be able to dispatch out for you to transfer command to. My question is why my other ships aren't out there with me in the first place. Am I an Admiral or not?
If not, and I am only effectively a Captain in terms of my power and authority in game, then why do I have a personal fleet of ships? I don't recall any of the starring Captains of the Star Trek franchise having a personal fleet of ships that they could change command to. Kirk stuck to the Enterprise, its refit, and its replacement when it sploded. Picard stuck to the -D for the entire TNG series, until it sploded and he got the -E. So on and so forth.
The point is Captains didn't jump from ship to ship in canon - they were assigned a command and they stuck to it. So as a ship captain, where do we get the mechanic of personal 'garages' of ships that we can jump to as we like? The only way that would be believable is if as Admirals we have a battlegroup assigned to our command, and that by nature involves the ships in that battlegroup travelling with us.
---
What I would suggest is, starting at Rear Admiral Lower (or equivalent - lvl 40):
* Unlocking extra ship slots for accompanying ships, using a similar or identical system to Boffs on ground missions;
* 1 or 2 initial extra ship slots unlocked at Rear Admiral Lower Half or equivalent rank (lvl 40);
* 1 or 2 extra ship slots per rank (not level) above lvl 40;
* Additional "Universal Captain Bridge Officer Station" added to each ship;
* Boffs promotable to Captain, and assigned as the captain of a particular ship in your group. That ship gains the Boff's abilities and AI;
* Each ship is staffed with its own complement of bridge officers optimised for that ship;
* You as Group Commander have overall authority and can set up and co-ordinate other ships (like the Boff commands in ground missions);
* You as Group Commander have direct control of your 'Flagship' (i.e. your selected ship, which functions as the lead ship in the group);
* You as Group Commander can transfer your flag to any of the ships in your group, and directly control that ship - This deals with the ship swapping issue;
---
If you wanted to keep starbases and social areas relevant, then perhaps you could place logistical limitations on ships in keeping with 'realism':
* limited shipboard supplies of Deuterium and Antimatter for your reactors, meaning a need to visit shipyards or starbases to 'refuel';
* limited numbers of torpedoes/consumables (can be bolstered by supply vessels, but even milk cows run out of juice as well - yes, I've read some of the arguments over this, it's just an idea here as part of a bigger picture);
* Make repair supplies (Components/regenerators) temporary, with a visit to shipyard/starbase required for permanent repairs.
Convenient and easy? Probably not. More complex and involved? Yeah, probably, but (for me at least) as a 3 pip Admiral it would be more believable and immersive.
Anyway, apologies for the long post, but that's just my take on it.
TL;DR: As an Admiral I'd rather have my ships out with me, then I could transfer my flag (i.e. switch ships) on the fly without having to 'call a ship from spacedock' or whatever...
Somewhere on the wrong side of insanity.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
Comments
The thing is if this was the first time a change resulted in a particular location having its value and traffic reduced then you'd be 100% correct. The fact that there have been other changes before it that show very similar intent shows a trend. We're not looking to the future to find a nebulous event that may or may not occur, we're in the nebula.
This point encapsulates so much of my thought. I wish I had written it.
I think this change is lazy of the developers. Here's why.
Since starting this thread (one of my thought-out posts as opposed to the knee jerk posts that many people hate me for) I've read a lot of different viewpoints, almost all of them constructive. (Thank you all for this.) I have read all posts and have slightly modified my train of thought, i.e. ship swapping in friendly territory would be a nice compromise. Even though, there is still something that is not sitting well with me.
This game is predominantly a space game. It's not Horizon Trek Online, or Land Trek Online or Soil Trek Online, it's STAR Trek Online. Star, as in astral body, out in space. To me (and this is opinion only) but a game of the stars should involve travel through them.
This upcoming change will be the latest in a string of changes that have rendered sector space more and more useless. The devs are responsible for this, after all regardless of who wants what changes they are the ones that implement it.
Rather than reducing the importance and value of space travel, the devs should be looking to grow it. To give it value. To make it fun. This sort of change would be far more valuable than creating new areas like the Dyson Sphere. Why? Because if you make space fun and valuable then EVERY future update to the game that involves space travel will benefit.
How to make it fun and valuable? Well, I'm not a game designer so all of my thoughts may not be surefire winners but...
--> Bring back random encounters, ones that you can run from. Make them optional by having an activation/deactivation setting in the options.
--> Create new sets to provide as random loot. Not cruddy blue MK XI stuff but introduce new sets that do different things. Maybe not as powerful as reputation MK XII gear but viable. This gives stuff for characters who have not yet maxed out their rep to use.
--> Utilise the lower deck of ESD (and a like area of Kronos) to provide missions that characters can embark on. Make them need to go out in to space and provide random missions. Missions with value. These missions will provide non-replicatable, non-tradable items that can be used in crafting.
--> Introduce new devices, devices that can be crafted. (more devices besides batteries are needed.) Make the ingredients obtained by these missions described above. For cool items, make the recipes rare to find and usable only once with a chance for failure.
--> Ensure that all of this stuff is viable but not more powerful that MK XII reputation gear. That stuff should be more powerful as it not only takes a long time to max out reputation but the items also have high costs to create.
--> Implement a system where the use of transwarp to the mission location is disabled. Make the missions in the less used systems to encourage growth and traffic through those areas less loved.
--> Most importantly, MAKE THIS ALL OPTIONAL. If a player wants to do it, then they can. If they don't, then their gameplay isn't affected. They're not going to miss out on getting the best gear in the game if they choose not to participate.
Laziness is taking the relevance of locations away. Innovation and creativity is injecting life in to areas that are becoming less used. Now, whether you want a system like this or not I think that this would be good for the game as it adds dimension without forcing anyone to do it.
Difficult not to reach that conclusion when it is being implied that subjecting oneself to that inconvenience somehow contributes to your having "earned" the "reward" of arriving at your destination, that gravitating towards an easier solution means you are somehow a less devoted, less worthy player. See: The use of the terms "lazy" and "dumbed down".
That is pure, unmitigated TRIBBLE. Your willingness to jump through tedious hoops does not prove you more "worthy" somehow.
Maybe for you it does. Not everyone shares your sentiment or recognizes it as valid.
If the "reward" is learning to navigate sector space, I have LONG since earned it, and I don't owe anyone any further demonstration of that fact.
For the sake of itself? Tedious slog through maps and loading screens just to satisfy some arbitrary condition to qualify as a "space" game?
No. Just no. Space combat satisfies that requirement just fine.
The theme here is that space traffic is a good thing, just because. So far I've seen nothing to support the contention, no reason why it is a good thing.
And no, saying "Duh, it's a space game, so it should require space travel" is not adequate. Some of these locations should take us weeks/months/years of travel, and if you're not willing to accept that level of realism, you're just as guilty of imposing arbitrary limits for the sake of convenience as anyone else.
Again with that word. Explain to me how lengthy travel in sector space is somehow the opposite of lazy. Does it make you more of a hard worker, more dedicated to the game? No. It makes you more patient with the utterly pointless tedium. The word you're looking for isn't "lazy." It's "impatient," and there's nothing in sector space to merit showing it any patience. Nothing but the empty symbolism of pretending to travel somewhere.
Joined January 2009
Because to complete the missions you would need to travel through space and run the risk of random encounters. That would be part of the missions obtained through the lower levels of ESD and the equivalent section of Kronos.
Now, my suggestion states that this system would be optional. This means you wouldn't have to to it. You could still transwarp to all the locations you can now, just not the new missions I'm suggesting. That being said, you could turn that part of the game off. Your current gameplay would not be affected, yet here you are attacking. Hmmm....
Hmmm.....
Well, its not that travelling sector space is either lazy or not.
However, given that there are rewards given for effort that makes sector space travel faster, one could argue that the faster you travel sector space the less lazy you are. Because you're running a higher mark warp core and, perhaps, have ground out faster rep engines.
But, because faster means less lazy in this paradigm, it doesn't mean infinitely fast is infinitely not lazy.
It means that the lazy/not lazy thing has been bypassed utterly.
Those faster engines you ground out? They mean nothing anymore.
It is not a piece of awesome game design to put a progression ingame that is nullified by a new mechanism.
If the autopilot turns you into Quetzalcoatl for no reason while activated. Sure. But then again, that would almost be worth it.
---
I'll just leave this right here for you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
I said there is no game play value. That's quite a difference from no value at all.
You might be able to derive some kind of value from sector space, but as game play is concerned, it's quite barren. In the end, sector space is a poorly thought out and poorly executed mechanic that is desperately in need of an overhaul.
So long as you understand that there's nothing whatsoever "wrong" with the fact that you'd get some participation initially, and then most people are going to switch off that setting and resume getting where they need to go as quickly as possible.
:rolleyes:
You're a little oversensitive if you took anything I said as an "attack".
Name one "piece of awesome" that grants you speed in sector space and nothing else.
I submit that it is a peripheral benefit of minor, secondary importance to the main benefit of those skill points and pieces of equipment. Quantum slipstream drive I will grant you, but as for the rest...they will still have value for me even if I never show up in sector space again.
Whatever.
Their failure to recognize does not alter the reality.
This is missing the point by so much that I'm tempted to simply not bother with further responses to your posts.
Thank you for validating my previous statement.
from your link: "slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen."
Inevitable = something that will eventually happen.
Not at all. I've been complaining about that aspect of sector space travel since launch.
Nice rebuttal. :rolleyes:
Failure to recognize that you feel a sense of accomplishment for the lofty achievement of navigating sector space? Do you understand that your precious little feelings are not universal, and do not dictate reality?
Disagreeing with you is not "missing the point." You said the desire is for the reward. What reward? Your sense of accomplishment. As there is no sense of accomplishment in that for me, there is no reward. If there is a point beyond that, you have failed to articulate it. It's more likely that you just want people to accept that there is some value in it without you having to define it in non-subjective, unemotional terms.
What I want is for the ships to keep their configuration when I switch between them.
The ship power tray, power levels, BOff stations, Active Space DOffs, everything except the weapons and consoles. Currently power levels and BOff stations are kept (until the next major release where they have to fix it again...), the rest is on a per character basis, not a per ship basis.
SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
That is precisely the heart of the matter. These are individual needs ignoring the environment at large. And without the environment, what use is this game as a MMO?
---
People need to face the fact that the social/multiplayer aspect is something of an afterthought in this game. All of the storyline/episode stuff can be done solo. All of the queued missions can be done without speaking to a single other person. Even with close friends online, we team up and do things. That's more than enough justification for subscribing to an online multiplayer game. I don't need it to be an elaborate conference call for me to catch up with acquaintances. That angle adds zero value for me, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
I'm wondering if changing ships in sector space is a precursor to what they said a long time ago they wanted to do. They mentioned way back at one point that they wanted to increase the level cap to 60, give us full admiral and general rank, and allow us to command a fleet of our own starships.
It's possible the season 8.5 changes could set the foundation for that. But my guess is that it will take a new full season or expansion before we see anything like that.
I won't hold my breath, but I like what I'm hearing about the changes so far.
Now, see, this I can work with (just the quoted bit, not the continued taking of pot shots at those who would not like to be subjected to forced conformity to your preferred style of play, which I omitted from what I quoted). This I can respond to without a "Reflect Damage" approach.
I've added numbers (in a nice Romulanish green) to the quoted bit, to facilitate my responding.
(1) I like this.
(2) I like this.
(3) I like this, with one alteration: make the items account-bound, rather than character-bound. At Tier 2 of Dyson Rep, I kept getting the same console over and over again (with varying modifiers and sometimes purple, sometimes blue). I've got a fairly large collection of ships on my main, but honestly, it would have been nice if I could have passed some of these off to my alts, rather than have to sell or store them, since even with all the ships I have on my main, I can only make use of a limited number of these without having to trash other useful and desirable consoles on ships with limited number of slots for that type of console. I realize that's reputation stuff, and not intended to be movable between different characters on the same account, but it left me wondering if the Devs had really thought it through before implementing this aspect of the Dyson rep.
(4) I generally like this. Not too sure on the single-use blueprint or the chance of failure. Challenge is good, up to a point, and that point is when it begins to become frustrating.
(5) I'm not a fan of the grind (in this or any other game). The Dyson rep recently introduced is actually fairly quick and easy to get to tier 5 (if you can handle the atmospheric debuff in the space missions and/or are puissant in ground missions (I find the ground stuff generally quite frustrating, because the sensitivity of the mouse seems excessive, but if I turn it down in ground, it is also turned down in space, and that wouldn't be desirable). I normally prefer space missions to ground missions, but in the Sphere, it's the other way around, because of the atmospheric debuff and all the particle effects making the space missions mimic the effects of server latency. But anyway, I was under the impression that the system in use for Dyson rep would be a new system that would eventually be added to the previously-extant reputations, to make all of them less grindy than they currently are. Should it take effort? Of course. Should it take forever? Certainly not. Rather than add more grind, what's needed is more content, in the form of storyline and missions. It took me very little time to get from level 0 to level 50, such that I was still doing storyline missions well after hitting the level cap. I do like the idea of having things still to do at the level cap, but when the rewards for doing those missions are green Mk X gear, it seems somewhat silly. In cases like that, the only thing that encouraged me to keep doing the missions was the fact that I like the lore in any game (if it's not done in a horrible manner), and that I adore Star Trek and wanted to know the story of the storyline.
(6) Not sure on this. I would want to see more of what it would be like before I would like to give an opinion.
(7) Very much this. But also, not just a single activate/deactivate for the entirety of 1-6, but each specific (not the details, but the actually different things, -- for example, 1 and 3 and 6 are all different from one another, and rather than one choice to say "aye" or "nay" to the whole thing, we should be able to say "aye" or "nay" to each of these individually, 1 and 3, and 6).
Well, if you're saying that it might happen, that is illogical as well. They might close the servers down forever tomorrow if they add an offline option. Both are non-sequitur and presumptive speculation.
If you are saying that it will eventually happen if they implement swapping in space, then you are making a slippery slope argument.
Either way, it's still false. It's seems you're trying to do some hand waving to make it look like you're not making a slippery slope, but you're also making it appear that it is a real problem that must be prevented. If your claim is it's not certain, you're just crying "the sky is falling." If your claim is that it is certain, then you need to demonstrate that it will happen, as proof is something that demonstrates something to be true. Otherwise, it's just your opinion. If you think that's what will happen, that's fine. That doesn't mean we all have to agree that your opinion is factual, when it is merely speculation.
I think we may be using two different definitions of gameplay.
For myself, its what I get out of playing the game. The value may actually be an emergent phenomenon, in the sense it comes about not because of something a developer set up, but because of the interaction of myself and the game.
Then there's the definition you appear to be using, which is more to do with the game mechanics and whether they work or not.
Neither of us are wrong, i think we're just using a slightly different tool to look at things.
However, I can wholly agree that sector space needs an overhaul.
I can even see how the proposed new ship swap mechanism could be part of that, provided the proposed amendment is made.
If people are looking at which sector they're in, in terms of distance from resupply, then we're already starting to make sector space (or at least which part of sector space you're in) important.
However, the proposed ship swap mechanism, if allowed everywhere, would be its death knell.
There's still a pulse, if faint and thready.
Well, you did answer your own question for me.
Quantum slipstream.
A number of other pieces of kit either increase your maximum warp, or reduce the QS CD, or increase how long it lasts as part of their specs.
The proposed change is, in effect, a nerf on all those pieces of equipment.
Perhaps not making them worthless, but certainly making one or two of their abilities useless. Which reduces their overall value.
Nothing in this game, happens in a vacuum. Except the space stuff, thats a vacuum.
But changes in one place effect mechanisms in others.
With environment, I mean the general flow of things, what you see other people do. What kind of imagery other people conjure up by their presence. How activities form a pattern. Indirectly of course.
In a single player game, this would be emulated by NPCs, here you need "traffic control". And this is where the hubs enter the picture. Apart from functionality, they also need to blend into the background and streamline various activities. Maintaining the general scheme of things.
Now, I will admit to avoid the ESD, it just becomes too much. But some people like it. Apparently. In a MMO it all needs to come together in a coherent pattern, even when you don't like it. And that is why swapping ships, like you would underpants, is such a bad move. It doesn't properly channel the activities, in a manner that conforms to such "traffic control".
In single player games, this would equal some pretty obvious and bad spawning I guess. Much like in an MMO then. Full circle.
---
Okay, but as best I can remember, I didn't make any predictions in this thread. I just corrected people's usage of the term "slippery slope", specifically the difference between inevitable and potential.
With that said, whether or not a concern over potential consequences is illogical is determined by their probability.
Which is still an unnecessary speculation, as we have the an existing trend evinced in the observed history of the game's development.
The game was screwed at launch. There was great potential that for whatever reason, was not realized. Now with momentum and precedents established, there's not much hope it can be salvaged. Still, I do what I can.
I like that link. It says You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
In the case of certain zones being made more and more redundant I think a new slippery-slope type is required.
Midway down the slippery-slope - "When a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i have occurred it is reasonable to assume that j will be next. We should really try to stop at j"
I think this is more accurate for this scenario.
False dilemma and slippery slope in one post.
False dilemma in that you seem to be perceiving only two possibilities, and are certainly presenting only two possibilities. In reality, the "amendment" which you favor is only one of several things that could be done. The lengthy post by darramouss1 to which I replied just a few posts ago offers other proposed modifications. The point is that almost any question has at least three answers. This sort of thinking in "Black Or White And No Other Options" is one of the several reasons why I contend that we need three full factions in game, to discourage such limited and limiting approaches to everything. Dualism stinks, because it seeks to limit everything to two and only two options -- it seeks to limit the unlimited (thought, imagination, creativity).
Slippery slope in that you have stated, in no uncertain terms, but a definite conditional statement, that If X then Y, without showing any reason to believe the truth of that proposition. Your slippery slope appears to be an unwarranted assumption, a bit of hyperbole, an attempt at fear-mongering, or a belief in the infallibility of your divinatory powers.
I hope they do this, what's the point of being an Admiral when you can't command a fleet. Honestly this is the only space game I play where I don't have a fleet following me around in combat. It makes me feel more like a Lieutenant than an Admiral.
ships on the fly - however with limitations you can already do that on the shuttle bridge now... So it changes from a choice of two ships to a choice between all of your ships.
From a believability and immersion factor, what I find more ridiculous is a three-pip Admiral in the captain's chair of a single starship. No, this game is not based on real military structure, but consider this scenario:
A United States Navy Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is commanded by a Rear Admiral who generally resides on the carrier itself. He/she is in overall command of the entire Strike Group. He/she does not directly command the carrier itself - that is the responsibility of a Captain who is assigned command of the carrier.
Other elements of this CSG include:
* The Carrier Air Wing - the squadrons of aircraft stationed on the carrier. Overseen by the Commander Air Group (CAG) - Captain in rank;
* Guided missile cruisers - overseen by Captains;
* Destroyers - overseen by Captains;
* Submarine/s - overseen by Captains;
* Supply and logistics vessels - overseen by Captains.
The point of this description is as background for my take on the situation - my question is not why or how a ship should/should not be able to dispatch out for you to transfer command to. My question is why my other ships aren't out there with me in the first place. Am I an Admiral or not?
If not, and I am only effectively a Captain in terms of my power and authority in game, then why do I have a personal fleet of ships? I don't recall any of the starring Captains of the Star Trek franchise having a personal fleet of ships that they could change command to. Kirk stuck to the Enterprise, its refit, and its replacement when it sploded. Picard stuck to the -D for the entire TNG series, until it sploded and he got the -E. So on and so forth.
The point is Captains didn't jump from ship to ship in canon - they were assigned a command and they stuck to it. So as a ship captain, where do we get the mechanic of personal 'garages' of ships that we can jump to as we like? The only way that would be believable is if as Admirals we have a battlegroup assigned to our command, and that by nature involves the ships in that battlegroup travelling with us.
---
What I would suggest is, starting at Rear Admiral Lower (or equivalent - lvl 40):
* Unlocking extra ship slots for accompanying ships, using a similar or identical system to Boffs on ground missions;
* 1 or 2 initial extra ship slots unlocked at Rear Admiral Lower Half or equivalent rank (lvl 40);
* 1 or 2 extra ship slots per rank (not level) above lvl 40;
* Additional "Universal Captain Bridge Officer Station" added to each ship;
* Boffs promotable to Captain, and assigned as the captain of a particular ship in your group. That ship gains the Boff's abilities and AI;
* Each ship is staffed with its own complement of bridge officers optimised for that ship;
* You as Group Commander have overall authority and can set up and co-ordinate other ships (like the Boff commands in ground missions);
* You as Group Commander have direct control of your 'Flagship' (i.e. your selected ship, which functions as the lead ship in the group);
* You as Group Commander can transfer your flag to any of the ships in your group, and directly control that ship - This deals with the ship swapping issue;
---
If you wanted to keep starbases and social areas relevant, then perhaps you could place logistical limitations on ships in keeping with 'realism':
* limited shipboard supplies of Deuterium and Antimatter for your reactors, meaning a need to visit shipyards or starbases to 'refuel';
* limited numbers of torpedoes/consumables (can be bolstered by supply vessels, but even milk cows run out of juice as well - yes, I've read some of the arguments over this, it's just an idea here as part of a bigger picture);
* Make repair supplies (Components/regenerators) temporary, with a visit to shipyard/starbase required for permanent repairs.
Convenient and easy? Probably not. More complex and involved? Yeah, probably, but (for me at least) as a 3 pip Admiral it would be more believable and immersive.
Anyway, apologies for the long post, but that's just my take on it.
TL;DR: As an Admiral I'd rather have my ships out with me, then I could transfer my flag (i.e. switch ships) on the fly without having to 'call a ship from spacedock' or whatever...
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.